Prolonged thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin for abdominal or pelvic surgery

BACKGROUND

This an update of the review first published in 2009.Major abdominal and pelvic surgery carries a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The efficacy of thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) administered during the in-hospital period is well-documented, but the optimal duration of prophylaxis after surgery remains controversial. Some studies suggest that patients undergoing major abdominopelvic surgery benefit from prolongation of the prophylaxis up to 28 days after surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of prolonged thromboprophylaxis with LMWH for at least 14 days after abdominal or pelvic surgery compared with thromboprophylaxis administered during the in-hospital period only in preventing late onset VTE.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed electronic searches on 28 October 2017 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and registered trials (Clinicaltrials.gov October 28, 2017 and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) 28 October 2017). Abstract books from major congresses addressing thromboembolism were handsearched from 1976 to 28 October 2017, as were reference lists from relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We assessed randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing prolonged thromboprophylaxis (≥ fourteen days) with any LMWH agent with placebo, or other methods, or both to thromboprophylaxis during the admission period only. The population consisted of persons undergoing abdominal or pelvic surgery for both benign and malignant pathology. The outcome measures included VTE (deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)) as assessed by objective means (venography, ultrasonography, pulmonary ventilation/perfusion scintigraphy, spiral computed tomography (CT) scan or autopsy). We excluded studies exclusively reporting on clinical diagnosis of VTE without objective confirmation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors identified studies and extracted data. Outcomes were VTE (DVT or PE) assessed by objective means. Safety outcomes were defined as bleeding complications and mortality within three months after surgery. Sensitivity analyses were also performed with unpublished studies excluded, and with study participants limited to those undergoing solely open and not laparoscopic surgery. We used a fixed-effect model for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven RCTs (1728 participants) evaluating prolonged thromboprophylaxis with LMWH compared with control or placebo. The searches resulted in 1632 studies, of which we excluded 1528. One hundred and four abstracts, eligible for inclusion, were assessed of which seven studies met the inclusion criteria.For the primary outcome, the incidence of overall VTE after major abdominal or pelvic surgery was 13.2% in the control group compared to 5.3% in the patients receiving out-of-hospital LMWH (Mantel Haentzel (M-H) odds ratio (OR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.54; I² = 28%; moderate-quality evidence).For the secondary outcome of all DVT, seven studies, n = 1728, showed prolonged thromboprophylaxis with LMWH to be associated with a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of all DVT (M-H OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.55; I² = 28%; moderate-quality evidence).We found a similar reduction when analysis was limited to incidence in proximal DVT (M-H OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.47; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence).The incidence of symptomatic VTE was also reduced from 1.0% in the control group to 0.1% in patients receiving prolonged thromboprophylaxis (M-H OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.11; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence).No difference in the incidence of bleeding between the control and LMWH group was found, 2.8% and 3.4%, respectively (M-H OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.81; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence).No difference in mortality between the control and LMWH group was found, 3.8% and 3.9%, respectively (M-H OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.84; moderate-quality evidence).Estimates of heterogeneity ranged between 0% and 28% depending on the analysis, suggesting low or unimportant heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged thromboprophylaxis with LMWH significantly reduces the risk of VTE compared to thromboprophylaxis during hospital admittance only, without increasing bleeding complications or mortality after major abdominal or pelvic surgery. This finding also holds true for DVT alone, and for both proximal and symptomatic DVT. The quality of the evidence is moderate and provides moderate support for routine use of prolonged thromboprophylaxis. Given the low heterogeneity between studies and the consistent and moderate evidence of a decrease in risk for VTE, our findings suggest that additional studies may help refine the degree of risk reduction but would be unlikely to significantly influence these findings. This updated review provides additional evidence and supports the previous results reported in the 2009 review.

Prolonged thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin for abdominal or pelvic surgery

BACKGROUND

This an update of the review first published in 2009.Major abdominal and pelvic surgery carries a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The efficacy of thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) administered during the in-hospital period is well-documented, but the optimal duration of prophylaxis after surgery remains controversial. Some studies suggest that patients undergoing major abdominopelvic surgery benefit from prolongation of the prophylaxis up to 28 days after surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of prolonged thromboprophylaxis with LMWH for at least 14 days after abdominal or pelvic surgery compared with thromboprophylaxis administered during the in-hospital period only in preventing late onset VTE.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed electronic searches on 28 October 2017 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and registered trials (Clinicaltrials.gov October 28, 2017 and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) 28 October 2017). Abstract books from major congresses addressing thromboembolism were handsearched from 1976 to 28 October 2017, as were reference lists from relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We assessed randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing prolonged thromboprophylaxis (≥ fourteen days) with any LMWH agent with placebo, or other methods, or both to thromboprophylaxis during the admission period only. The population consisted of persons undergoing abdominal or pelvic surgery for both benign and malignant pathology. The outcome measures included VTE (deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)) as assessed by objective means (venography, ultrasonography, pulmonary ventilation/perfusion scintigraphy, spiral computed tomography (CT) scan or autopsy). We excluded studies exclusively reporting on clinical diagnosis of VTE without objective confirmation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors identified studies and extracted data. Outcomes were VTE (DVT or PE) assessed by objective means. Safety outcomes were defined as bleeding complications within three months after surgery. Sensitivity analyses were also performed with unpublished studies excluded, and with study participants limited to those undergoing solely open and not laparoscopic surgery. We used a fixed-effect model for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven RCTs (1728 participants) evaluating prolonged thromboprophylaxis with LMWH compared with control or placebo. The searches resulted in 1632 studies, of which we excluded 1528. One hundred and four abstracts, eligible for inclusion, were assessed of which seven studies met the inclusion criteria.For the primary outcome, the incidence of overall VTE after major abdominal or pelvic surgery was 13.2% in the control group compared to 5.3% in the patients receiving out-of-hospital LMWH (Mantel Haentzel (M-H) odds ratio (OR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.54; I² = 28%; seven studies, n = 1728; moderate-quality evidence).For the secondary outcome of all DVT, seven studies, n = 1728, showed prolonged thromboprophylaxis with LMWH to be associated with a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of all DVT (M-H OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.55; I² = 28%; moderate-quality evidence).We found a similar reduction when analysis was limited to incidence in proximal DVT (M-H OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.47; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence).The incidence of symptomatic VTE was also reduced from 1.0% in the control group to 0.1% in patients receiving prolonged thromboprophylaxis (M-H OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.11; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence).No difference in the incidence of bleeding between the control and LMWH group was found, 2.8% and 3.4%, respectively (HM-H OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.81; I² = 0%; seven studies, n = 2239; moderate-quality evidence).Estimates of heterogeneity ranged between 0% and 28% depending on the analysis, suggesting low or unimportant heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged thromboprophylaxis with LMWH significantly reduces the risk of VTE compared to thromboprophylaxis during hospital admittance only, without increasing bleeding complications after major abdominal or pelvic surgery. This finding also holds true for DVT alone, and for both proximal and symptomatic DVT. The quality of the evidence is moderate and provides moderate support for routine use of prolonged thromboprophylaxis. Given the low heterogeneity between studies and the consistent and moderate evidence of a decrease in risk for VTE, our findings suggest that additional studies may help refine the degree of risk reduction but would be unlikely to significantly influence these findings. This updated review provides additional evidence and supports the previous results reported in the 2009 review.

Slow versus fast subcutaneous heparin injections for prevention of bruising and site pain intensity

BACKGROUND

Heparin is an anticoagulant medication that is usually injected subcutaneously. Subcutaneous administration of heparin may result in complications such as bruising, haematoma, and pain at the injection site. One of the factors that may affect pain, haematoma, and bruising is injection speed. For patients and healthcare providers, strategies that can reduce pain and bruising are considered important. Reducing patients' discomfort and concerns whenever and wherever possible is an important aim of nursing. Several studies have been carried out to see if speed of injection affects the amount of pain and bruising where the injection is given, but results of these studies have differed and study authors have not reached a clear final conclusion. This is the first update of the review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of duration (speed) of subcutaneous heparin injection on pain, haematoma, and bruising at the injection site in people admitted to hospitals or clinics who require treatment with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH).

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (last searched March 2017) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2). The CIS also searched trials registries for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. Review authors searched two Persian databases - Iranmedex and Scientific Information Database (SID) - as well as Google Scholar.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of different durations of subcutaneous injection of heparin on pain, bruising, and haematoma at the injection site.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (MM, LJ), working independently, extracted data onto a structured form and assessed study quality. We used the criteria recommended by Cochrane to assess the risk of bias of included studies. For the outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) or the standardised MD (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We pooled data using fixed-effect and random-effects models. We used GRADE to assess the overall quality of evidence supporting outcomes assessed in this review.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, we identified three new studies and therefore included in the Review four studies with a total of 459 participants who received subcutaneous injections of LMWH into the abdomen. Only one trial reported the injected drug volume (0.4 mL). Owing to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind participants and care givers (personnel) in any included study. Two studies described blinding of outcome assessors; therefore overall, the methodological quality of included studies was moderate. The duration of the fast injection was 10 seconds and the duration of the slow injection was 30 seconds in all included studies.Three studies reported site pain intensity after each injection at different time points. Two studies assessed site pain intensity immediately after each injection, and meta-analysis on 140 participants showed no clear difference in site pain intensity immediately post slow injection when compared to fast injection (low-quality evidence; P = 0.15). In contrast, meta-analysis of two studies with 59 participants showed that 48 hours after the heparin injection, slow injection was associated with less pain intensity compared to fast injection (low-quality evidence; P = 0.007). One study (40 participants) reported pain intensity at 60 and 72 hours after injection. This study described no clear difference in site pain intensity at 60 and 72 hours post slow injection compared to fast injection.All four included studies assessed bruise size at 48 hours after each injection. Meta-analysis on 459 participants showed no difference in bruise size after slow injection compared to fast injection (low-quality evidence; P = 0.07). None of the included studies measured the incidence of haematoma as an outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found four RCTs that evaluated the effect of subcutaneous heparin injection duration on pain intensity and bruise size. Owing to the small numbers of participants, we found insufficient evidence to determine any effect on pain intensity immediately after injection or at 60 and 72 hours post injection. However, slow injection may reduce site pain intensity 48 hours after injection (low-quality evidence). We observed no clear difference in bruise size after slow injection compared to fast injection (low-quality evidence). We judged this evidence to be of low quality owing to imprecision and inconsistency.

Slow versus fast subcutaneous heparin injections for prevention of bruising and site pain intensity

BACKGROUND

Heparin is an anticoagulant medication that is usually injected subcutaneously. Subcutaneous administration of heparin may result in complications such as bruising, haematoma, and pain at the injection site. One of the factors that may affect pain, haematoma, and bruising is injection speed. For patients and healthcare providers, strategies that can reduce pain and bruising are considered important. Reducing patients' discomfort and concerns whenever and wherever possible is an important aim of nursing. Several studies have been carried out to see if speed of injection affects the amount of pain and bruising where the injection is given, but results of these studies have differed and study authors have not reached a clear final conclusion. This is the first update of the review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of duration (speed) of subcutaneous heparin injection on pain, haematoma, and bruising at the injection site in people admitted to hospitals or clinics who require treatment with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH).

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (last searched March 2017) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2). The CIS also searched trials registries for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. Review authors searched two Persian databases - Iranmedex and Scientific Information Database (SID) - as well as Google Scholar.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of different durations of subcutaneous injection of heparin on pain, bruising, and haematoma at the injection site.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (MM, LJ), working independently, extracted data onto a structured form and assessed study quality. We used the criteria recommended by Cochrane to assess the risk of bias of included studies. For the outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) or the standardised MD (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We pooled data using fixed-effect and random-effects models. We used GRADE to assess the overall quality of evidence supporting outcomes assessed in this review.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, we identified three new studies and therefore included in the Review four studies with a total of 459 participants who received subcutaneous injections of LMWH into the abdomen. Only one trial reported the injected drug volume (0.4 mL). Owing to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind participants and care givers (personnel) in any included study. Two studies described blinding of outcome assessors; therefore overall, the methodological quality of included studies was moderate. The duration of the fast injection was 10 seconds and the duration of the slow injection was 30 seconds in all included studies.Three studies reported site pain intensity after each injection at different time points. Two studies assessed site pain intensity immediately after each injection, and meta-analysis on 140 participants showed no clear difference in site pain intensity immediately post slow injection when compared to fast injection (low-quality evidence; P = 0.15). In contrast, meta-analysis of two studies with 59 participants showed that 48 hours after the heparin injection, slow injection was associated with less pain intensity compared to fast injection (low-quality evidence; P = 0.007). One study (40 participants) reported pain intensity at 60 and 72 hours after injection. This study described no clear difference in site pain intensity at 60 and 72 hours post slow injection compared to fast injection.All four included studies assessed bruise size at 48 hours after each injection. Meta-analysis on 459 participants showed no difference in bruise size after slow injection compared to fast injection (low-quality evidence; P = 0.07). None of the included studies measured the incidence of haematoma as an outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found four RCTs that evaluated the effect of subcutaneous heparin injection duration on pain intensity and bruise size. Owing to the small numbers of participants, we found insufficient evidence to determine any effect on pain intensity immediately after injection or at 60 and 72 hours post injection. However, slow injection may reduce site pain intensity 48 hours after injection (low-quality evidence). We observed no clear difference in bruise size after slow injection compared to fast injection (low-quality evidence). We judged this evidence to be of low quality owing to imprecision and inconsistency.

Educational and behavioural interventions for anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend oral anticoagulation therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with one or more risk factors for stroke; however, anticoagulation control (time in therapeutic range (TTR)) with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) is dependent on many factors. Educational and behavioural interventions may impact patients' ability to maintain their international normalised ratio (INR) control. This is an updated version of the original review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of educational and behavioural interventions for oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) on TTR in patients with AF.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches from the previous review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) in The Cochrane Library (January 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1949 to February week 1 2016), EMBASE Classic + EMBASE Ovid (1980 to Week 7 2016), PsycINFO Ovid (1806 to Week 1 February 2016) and CINAHL Plus with Full Text EBSCO (1937 to 16/02/2016). We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of any educational and behavioural intervention compared with usual care, no intervention, or intervention in combination with other self-management techniques among adults with AF who were eligible for, or currently receiving, OAT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of the review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We included outcome data on TTR, decision conflict (patient's uncertainty in making health-related decisions), percentage of INRs in the therapeutic range, major bleeding, stroke and thromboembolic events, patient knowledge, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), beliefs about medication, illness perceptions, and anxiety and depression. We pooled data for three outcomes - TTR, anxiety and depression, and decision conflict - and reported mean differences (MD). Where insufficient data were present to conduct a meta-analysis, we reported effect sizes and confidence intervals (CI) from the included studies. We evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials with a total of 2246 AF patients (ranging from 14 to 712 by study) were included within the review. Studies included education, decision aids, and self-monitoring plus education interventions. The effect of self-monitoring plus education on TTR was uncertain compared with usual care (MD 6.31, 95% CI -5.63 to 18.25, I2 = 0%, 2 trials, 69 participants, very low-quality evidence). We found small but positive effects of education on anxiety (MD -0.62, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.04, I2 = 0%, 2 trials, 587 participants, low-quality evidence) and depression (MD -0.74, 95% CI -1.34 to -0.14, I2 = 0%, 2 trials, 587 participants, low-quality evidence) compared with usual care. The effect of decision aids on decision conflict favoured usual care (MD -0.1, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.02, I2 = 0%, 2 trials, 721 participants, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates that there is insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions regarding the impact of educational or behavioural interventions on TTR in AF patients receiving OAT. Thus, more trials are needed to examine the impact of interventions on anticoagulation control in AF patients and the mechanisms by which they are successful. It is also important to explore the psychological implications for patients suffering from this long-term chronic condition.

Treatment for superficial infusion thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity

BACKGROUND

Although superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity represents a frequent complication of intravenous catheters inserted into the peripheral veins of the forearm or hand, no consensus exists on the optimal management of this condition in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy and safety of (topical, oral or parenteral) medical therapy of superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched April 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (2015, Issue 3). Clinical trials registries were searched up to April 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing any (topical, oral or parenteral) medical treatment to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different medical interventions (e.g. a different variant scheme or regimen of the same intervention or a different pharmacological type of treatment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on methodological quality, patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes, including improvement of signs and symptoms as the primary effectiveness outcome, and number of participants experiencing side effects of the study treatments as the primary safety outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 13 studies (917 participants). The evaluated treatment modalities consisted of a topical treatment (11 studies), an oral treatment (2 studies) and a parenteral treatment (2 studies). Seven studies used a placebo or no intervention control group, whereas all others also or solely compared active treatment groups. No study evaluated the effects of ice or the application of cold or hot bandages. Overall, the risk of bias in individual trials was moderate to high, although poor reporting hampered a full appreciation of the risk in most studies. The overall quality of the evidence for each of the outcomes varied from low to moderate mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision, with only single trials contributing to most comparisons. Data on primary outcomes improvement of signs and symptoms and side effects attributed to the study treatment could not be statistically pooled because of the between-study differences in comparisons, outcomes and type of instruments to measure outcomes.An array of topical treatments, such as heparinoid or diclofenac gels, improved pain compared to placebo or no intervention. Compared to placebo, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduced signs and symptoms intensity. Safety issues were reported sparsely and were not available for some interventions, such as notoginseny creams, parenteral low-molecular-weight heparin or defibrotide. Although several trials reported on adverse events with topical heparinoid creams, Essaven gel or phlebolan versus control, the trials were underpowered to adequately measure any differences between treatment modalities. Where reported, adverse events with topical treatments consisted mainly of local allergic reactions. Only one study of 15 participants assessed thrombus extension and symptomatic venous thromboembolism with either oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or low-molecular-weight heparin, and it reported no cases of either. No study reported on the development of suppurative phlebitis, catheter-related bloodstream infections or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence about the treatment of acute infusion superficial thrombophlebitis is limited and of low quality. Data appear too preliminary to assess the effectiveness and safety of topical treatments, systemic anticoagulation or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Prophylactic antibiotics for preventing Gram positive infections associated with long-term central venous catheters in oncology patients

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the review which was first published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2006. Long-term central venous catheters (CVCs), including tunnelled CVCs (TCVCs) and totally implanted devices or ports (TIDs), are increasingly used when treating oncology patients. Despite international guidelines on sterile insertion and appropriate CVC maintenance and use, infection remains a common complication. These infections are mainly caused by Gram positive bacteria. Antimicrobial prevention strategies aimed at these micro-organisms could potentially decrease the majority of CVC infections. The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of antibiotics in the prevention of Gram positive infections in long-term CVCs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of administering antibiotics prior to the insertion of long-term CVCs, or flushing or locking long-term CVCs with a combined antibiotic and heparin solution, or both, to prevent Gram positive catheter-related infections in adults and children receiving treatment for cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (to June 2013) and the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (1966 to 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic antibiotics given prior to long-term CVC insertion with no antibiotics, RCTs comparing a combined antibiotic and heparin solution with a heparin-only solution to flush or lock newly inserted long-term CVCs, and RCTs comparing a combination of these interventions in adults and children receiving treatment for cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, classified them and extracted data on to a pre-designed data collection form. We pooled data using the RevMan software version 5.2 and used random-effects (RE) model methods for meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 trials with a total of 828 oncology patients (adults and children). We assessed most included studies to be at a low or unclear risk of bias. Five trials compared the use of antibiotics (vancomycin, teicoplanin or ceftazidime) given before the insertion of the long-term CVC with no antibiotics, and six trials compared antibiotics (vancomycin, amikacin or taurolidine) and heparin with a heparin-only solution for flushing or locking the long-term CVC after use. Administering an antibiotic prior to insertion of the CVC did not significantly reduce Gram positive catheter-related sepsis (CRS) (five trials, 360 adults; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 1.58; I² = 5 2%; P = 0.41).Flushing and locking long-term CVCs with a combined antibiotic and heparin solution significantly reduced the risk of Gram positive catheter-related sepsis compared with a heparin-only solution (468 participants, mostly children; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.80; I² = 0%; P = 0.005). For a baseline infection rate of 15%, this reduction translated into a number needed to treat (NNT) of 12 (95% CI 9 to 33) to prevent one catheter-related infection. We considered this evidence to be of a moderate quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no benefit to administering antibiotics before the insertion of long-term CVCs to prevent Gram positive catheter-related infections. Flushing or locking long-term CVCs with a combined antibiotic and heparin solution appeared to reduce Gram positive catheter-related sepsis experienced in people at risk of neutropenia through chemotherapy or disease. Due to insufficient data it was not clear whether this applied equally to TCVCs and totally implanted devices (TIDs), or equally to adults and children. The use of a combined antibiotic and heparin solution may increase microbial antibiotic resistance, therefore it should be reserved for high risk people or where baseline CVC infection rates are high (> 15%). Further research is needed to identify high risk groups most likely to benefit.

Once versus twice daily low molecular weight heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

In the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is administered once or twice daily. A once daily treatment regimen is more convenient for the patient and may optimise home treatment. However, it is not clear whether a once daily treatment regimen is as safe and effective as a twice daily treatment regimen. This is the second update of a review first published in 2003.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of once daily versus twice daily administration of LMWH.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched May 2013) and CENTRAL (2013, Issue 4).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials in which LMWH given once daily is compared with LMWH given twice daily for the initial treatment of VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies were included with a total of 1508 participants. The pooled data showed no statistically significant difference in recurrent VTE between the two treatment regimens (OR 0.82, 0.49 to 1.39; P = 0.47). A comparison of major haemorrhagic events (OR 0.77, 0.40 to 1.45; P = 0.41), improvement of thrombus size (OR 1.41, 0.66 to 3.01; P = 0.38) and mortality (OR 1.14, 0.62 to 2.08; P = 0.68) also showed no statistically significant differences between the two treatment regimens. None of the five included studies reported data on post-thrombotic syndrome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Once daily treatment with LMWH is as effective and safe as twice daily treatment with LMWH.

Dosing of unfractionated heparin in obese patients with venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Aggressive weight-based dosing guidelines help achieve prompt therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). While obese patients with VTE face an increased risk of recurrence, physicians typically resist prescribing doses two to three times the usual dose because of concern about bleeding complications.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the use of unfractionated heparin in obese patients with VTE at an academic teaching hospital in order to document the extent and pattern of underprescribing in this high-risk patient population.

DESIGN

Three-year, cross-sectional consecutive case series.

PATIENTS

Adult inpatients with VTE and a body mass index ≥30 kg/m(2) who were treated with unfractionated heparin.

MEASUREMENTS

Time to achievement of therapeutic anticoagulation (activated partial thromboplastin time >60 s) and gap between recommended and prescribed heparin doses.

RESULTS

Time to attainment of therapeutic anticoagulation exceeded 24 h in 29% of study patients (n = 84) and exceeded 48 h in 14% of patients. In 75 patients (89%), the prescribed bolus dose fell below the recommended dose of 80 units/kg, and in 64 patients (76%) the initial continuous infusion fell more than 100 units/h below--in some cases more than 1000 units/h below--the recommended dose of 18 units/kg/h. There was a significant correlation between time to therapeutic anticoagulation and initial infusion dose (Spearman r = -0.27; p < 0.02). Each decrease of 1 unit/kg/h translated to a delay ranging from about 0.75 h to 1.5 h over the range of prescribed doses (6 to 22 units/kg/h).

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of obese patients treated with unfractionated heparin experienced a delay >24 h in achieving adequate anticoagulation, and the vast majority received an inadequate heparin bolus or initial continuous infusion (or both) according to current dosing guidelines.

Bivalirudin anticoagulation for cardiopulmonary bypass: an unusual case

The standard agent used for systemic anticoagulation during cardiopulmonary bypass is heparin. Alternative methods of anticoagulation are required for patients with heparin hypersensitivity. We present the case of a patient with heparin hypersensitivity who was anticoagulated with bivalirudin during cardiopulmonary bypass for coronary artery bypass grafting. This presented unusual challenges surrounding the monitoring of anticoagulation and the method of myocardial protection.